Meddelanden: 38
Språk: English
Kirilo81 (Visa profilen) 9 maj 2016 20:23:04
ludomastro:I find it fascinating that my question doesn't seem to have a simple answer. Which, I suppose is good to know. It's a reminder that language A and language B aren't necessarily going to have a one to one correlation. I can live with that.No, the answer is quite simple: Whenever you have an adjectival root (not just any accidental adjective, but a root with inherent adjective character) X-a, the derived verbs have the following structural meanings:
X-i = esti X-a
X-igi = fari ion/iun X-a
Xiĝi = iĝi X-a
Not more, not less. Don't get confused by explanations like "X-i is ambiguous, so you need X-igi or X-iĝi" (it is not ambiguous in Esperanto) or "intransitive verbs can take an object" (not every accusative is a direct object). They are unfortunately wrong, caused by an English bias.
Alkanadi (Visa profilen) 10 maj 2016 06:49:29
Kirilo81:"intransitive verbs can take an object" (not every accusative is a direct object). They are unfortunately wrong, caused by an English bias.I don't want to be argumentative so please don't take it that way. I want to show some cases from the tekstaro where intransitive verbs have a direct object.
Intransitive - Lia koro batis tiel forte...
Intransitive - ...ke ŝia koro forte batas...
Intransitive - En ŝia brusto batas bona, varma koro!
Transitive - kaj batis lin
Transitive - Kial vi batas min?
Transitive - Cetere, oni ne batas min...
The sources above are from different books so we can't pin it on a single author.
That leaves us with a few choices:
1 - The currently believed dogma regarding verb transitivity is wrong.
2 - Esperanto is not regular.
3 - The tekstaro is full of mistakes.
richardhall (Visa profilen) 10 maj 2016 07:45:58
Alkanadi:I don't want to be argumentative so please don't take it that way. I want to show some cases from the tekstaro where intransitive verbs have a direct object.If a verb has a direct object, it is by definition transitive.
Bati is an example of one of those few verbs which can be used both transitively and intransitively - see its definition in PIV
Jordan has a list of some other examples in 'Being Colloquial in Esperanto'
Fenris_kcf (Visa profilen) 10 maj 2016 07:50:51
"bati" can be used transitively and instransitively: ReVo-entry.
You can understnd these as two verbs, which just have the same stem. If you really want, you can call this an irregularity.
EDIT: richardhall was faster
richardhall (Visa profilen) 10 maj 2016 08:35:00
Fenris_kcf:EDIT: richardhall was fasterThat isn't something you'll read very often!
Alkanadi (Visa profilen) 10 maj 2016 08:44:31
Fenris_kcf:If you really want, you can call this an irregularityIsn't Esperanto supposed to be regular? So, now if someone asks, I should tell them that Esperanto does have some exceptions?
Doesn't it make more sense that all verbs are both transitive and intransitive? Zamenhoff himself wrote:
Mi finis.
Fenris_kcf (Visa profilen) 10 maj 2016 11:16:58
Alkanadi:Like i said: It depends on how you want to call it. According to my understanding/definition it ain't an exception.Fenris_kcf:If you really want, you can call this an irregularityIsn't Esperanto supposed to be regular? So, now if someone asks, I should tell them that Esperanto does have some exceptions?
Alkanadi:Doesn't it make more sense that all verbs are both transitive and intransitive?So how would a transitive use of "to sleep" or "to rain" look like? "You sleep us"? "They rain him"?
Alkanadi:Zamenhoff himself wrote:I don't really care about what "Zamenhof himself" wrote. He was no linguist. To me his most important statement was the waiver on any rights on his creation.
Mi finis.
Vestitor (Visa profilen) 10 maj 2016 14:24:31
Fenris_kcf:Odd. Makes me wonder then why there are folk so zealous about sticking to the programme he laid out. Generally the creator of something knows his creation inside-out. Whether or not Zamenhof was "no linguist", his work is generally the path followed, as is evidenced by 99.99% of all subsequent major works.
I don't really care about what "Zamenhof himself" wrote. He was no linguist. To me his most important statement was the waiver on any rights on his creation.
erinja (Visa profilen) 10 maj 2016 14:47:10
Alkanadi:No, in fact, it makes no sense whatsoever for all verbs to be both transitive and intransitive. It's a bit like insisting that each and every adjective must have an opposite. Esperanto isn't irregular because there is no clear opposite to "rugxa"Fenris_kcf:If you really want, you can call this an irregularityIsn't Esperanto supposed to be regular? So, now if someone asks, I should tell them that Esperanto does have some exceptions?
Doesn't it make more sense that all verbs are both transitive and intransitive? Zamenhoff himself wrote:
Mi finis.
As a point of common sense, not every action is something that can be done to another thing, and the transitive meaning of an intransitive verb is not always obvious.
I don't recall seeing anywhere in the Fundamento that each verb must have only one transitivity, ever. It may be the case (and it is the case) that verbs in Esperanto generally do have only one transitivity but it doesn't mean it's a fixed rule that has somehow been "broken" if another verb is a little different. So if 99.5% of verbs have only intransitivity (tr or ntr), and if 0.5% of verbs have both a transitive and an intransitive meaning, this is not irregular, it's just a category of verbs that is very small, and it also doesn't mean that you can use every single verb with both transitivities willy nilly.
It's a bit like saying that some words have just one meaning and some words have more than one meaning (to be distinguished by context), but this doesn't mean that this is kontrauxfundamenta, because there's no rule that says that each word must have one and only one meaning.
Alkanadi (Visa profilen) 11 maj 2016 06:12:54
erinja:I don't recall seeing anywhere in the Fundamento that each verb must have only one transitivity, ever.I don't recall seeing that either. I think verbs are supposed to have both transitivities since that is how it is used in the fundamento.
it's just a category of verbs that is very smallBy this standard, couldn't someone say that English is regular as well? English just has a lot of categories.